Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 230 - ITAT JODHPURRectification Of Mistakes u/s 154 - declared 'Nil' income after claiming depreciation - CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action of not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC in computing the book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- In the present case assessee had claimed the deduction on the basis of Kerala High Court decision in G.T.N. Textile Ltd. 's case [2000 (8) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Hence now holding that the assessee has wrongly claimed the deduction is apparently a debatable issue, which cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the records. Such a debatable issue cannot be the subject-matter of order u/s 154. A 'mistake apparent' is a mistake that is manifest, plain or obvious, a mistake that can be realized without a debate or dissertation. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something, which appears to be ex facie that it is incapable of argument or debate. The mistake can be regarded as 'apparent' only when it is glaring obvious or self-evident mistake. The Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros.[1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be establish by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there are conceivably be two opinions. It is also evident from the submissions of the ld. A.R., that department itself is taking different view in different assessment years. In assessment year 1998-99, the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee after considering the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court. For assessment year 2002-03, the appeal of the assessee is allowed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Since the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not a mistake apparent from the record as envisaged by law, the order passed u/s 154 is liable to be quashed. Consequently, we quash the impugned order passed u/s 154 of the Act. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.
|